"In a prior post, we reported on a decision from a U.S. district court holding that it was false advertising for a company to claim that software licensed under

"In a prior post, we reported on a decision from a U.S. district court holding that it was false advertising for a company to claim that software licensed under the Affero General Public License version 3 with the addition of the Commons Clause (referred to in the case as the “Neo4j Sweden Software License”) was “free and open source” software" This part is false, also see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30712215 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30712215 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30726286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30726286 "That conclusion goes against the intent of the drafters of the AGPLv3" This is true, but I personally believe that the position held by the court (that it applies only to downstream licensees) makes much more sense. After all the original developer could have selected another license in the first place. "Any effort to change the terms of an open source license should be met with suspicion because they are likely designed to take away freedoms, or else an already OSI-approved license would have been suitable" I wonder when this start being true in their opinion (after the approval of GPLv3?). The threats to FOSS evolve and licenses must try to match them. It seems like an attempt to attack SSPL without explicitly mentioning it. "Sticking to OSI-approved licenses" There are also FSF-approved licenses which are not mentioned. The last part is pure advertisement.